From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-04 11:22:08
I have seen both used, and I'm not certain that they're different things.
Some compilers (MSVC?) have a non-standard iterator_traits definition. I
could be wrong, but I believe for these that we've got
BOOST_NO_STD_ITERATOR_TRAITS but not BOOST_NO_ITERATOR_TRAITS.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <beman_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>; <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Boost Graphs Library (GGCL)
> At 12:43 AM 9/4/2000 +0200, Jens Maurer wrote:
> > - We need to document BOOST_NO_STD_ITERATOR_TRAITS in a comment in
> There already was a comment, but it was misspelled as
> BOOST_NO_ITERATOR_TRAITS and appeared in the wrong place.
> Now fixed, and the CVS repository updated. The comment reads:
> // BOOST_NO_STD_ITERATOR_TRAITS: The compiler does not provide a standard
> // compliant implementation of std::iterator_traits. Note that
> // the compiler may still have a non-standard implementation.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk